And what to do about her.

Bill Scher at the Oasis lays it out pretty well, and asks a couple of questions (my underlines throughout):

Does it mean that Miers isn’t as conservative as Roberts? Does it mean liberals should get behind Miers?

No, and No.

And later he adds this:

Dems never got their footing against Roberts because they stood down during that critical period, while GOPers spun hard how “brilliant” Roberts was.

[...]

That “blank slate” frame is exactly what you need to defeat a stealth pick. The “crony” tag helps to drive home the importance of nominees with stellar records, not more of the Bush practice of picking political pals with no experience.

Dems and liberal activists got all that without even trying, despite just confirming a guy who was pretty much a blank slate.

But will they realize the gift that conservatives just gave them?

Doesn’t look like it.

[...]

Without leadership at the top, and without energy from the grassroots, we will likely have the same floundering, ineffectual opposition that we saw in the Roberts process – if we have any opposition at all.

Some may say, so what? Miers is probably the best we can do. If we defeat Miers, whoever comes next would have to be worse.

This is faulty, short-sighted logic.

If there’s enough criticism coming from the left and right to sink the nominee (a coalition David Corn suggests putting together), Bush ends up in his weakest political position ever.

If he then feels compelled to pick an overt right-winger to rehab his base, then that pick can be beat with a unified Democratic party backed by public opinion, completely boxing Bush in – unable to get a stealth pick or a overt right-wing pick.

Dems then would have the political leverage to force a real moderate pick.

[...]

The point is simply that a Miers defeat does not strengthen Bush’s ability to confirm an overt right-winger, so it is not dangerous to make that an ideal goal.

Now here's where the dice roll up sevens, where the river runs Democratic, well, we get puppies and kittens and flowers.

[T]here is a larger strategic goal as well.

To articulate to the public why this nomination is so important; how our workplaces, our environment and our privacy will be impacted by this one vote; and how Democrats and liberals would do a better job in shaping our judiciary and protecting our rights.

To stand down on Miers, as was done on Roberts, is to fail in explaining to the public what Democrats and liberals stand for.

I apologize for cutting so much, but this is the crux of the situation. Senator Reid’s statement on Ms. Miers isn't so unambiguous on careful reading, seems like he just offered her more as a for instance. So there’s still some time.

The Dems need to be reserved, and at some point say that she is unacceptable because of a lack of qualification for the job, period.
Her views aren't relevent mattered because she isn’t qualified.

So bush tries harder, picks a loon, offends wide swaths of America, or, he picks another cipher, but not his former personal counsel, his crony from Texas, he’s tapping the bench, and there’s a reason they’re on the bench, and as people get farther away from the springs of power, the less control the springs have over them, and all kinds of things happen bad for the gop.

Like Bill Clinton and Janet Reno as an example of what happens when you pick the third string. You don't always get what you want or expect.

And yet again, the Democrats get to DEMONSTRATE their VALUES thru OPPOSITION.